alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund XII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 (the "Report"). The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.






Date:    November 11, 2002                       /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
         ---------------------                   -----------------------------
                                                 Name:  James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer
由夏威夷前往美国大陆、阿拉斯加以及关岛的旅客需进行

行李检查

动植物卫生检验局 

植物保护与检疫处

美国农业部

美国农业部 (U.S. Department of Agriculture , USDA) 动

植物卫生检验局 (Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, APHIS) 禁止或限制许多农产品从夏威夷进入美

国大陆,包括大多数新鲜水果和蔬菜以及某些植物和花卉。

原因是这些产品可能携带危险的偷渡者——入侵性害虫或

疾病。携带入侵性害虫或疾病的单个水果或单株植物就可

能造成数百万美元的损失,并导致费用昂贵的根除工作、贸

易收入损失以及食品价格上涨。

为了防止入侵性害虫和疾病的传播,APHIS 检查从夏威夷

到美国大陆、阿拉斯加以及关岛的所有旅客的行李。APHIS 

官员会在您出发前在机场进行检查。

请随时准备好打开和关上您的行李。在检查结束之前,请勿

用胶带封上冷冻箱和盒子。若您携带任何新鲜水果或蔬菜、

植物、花卉、植物或木头制成的纪念品或其他农产品,请告

知检查员。若不申报这些物品,可能会造成行程延误,并可

能对每项违规行为处以 100 美元至 1000 美元不等的民事

处罚。

若您希望将农产品运送或邮寄至美国大陆和阿拉斯加,在

您将农产品运送至航空货运办公室、邮局或其他快递服务

机构之前,必须由 APHIS 进行检查和/或认证。

新鲜水果和蔬菜

由于存在引入某些入侵性植物害虫和疾病的风险,因此禁

止从夏威夷直接或通过阿拉斯加或关岛向美国大陆运输或

邮寄大多数新鲜水果和蔬菜。

但也有例外。新鲜菠萝和椰子经检查后允许运输。允许运输

新鲜木瓜、黃金果、释迦、香蕉、咖喱叶、火龙果、龙眼、荔枝、

山竹、红毛丹、杨桃和红薯,但必须在 USDA 批准的机构进

行处理,并包装在拥有适当标记和盖章的盒子中。

允许运输或邮寄加工过的水果和蔬菜。加工方法包括烹调、

干燥或冷冻。若为冷冻,所有水果在检查时必须冷冻成固

体。冷冻芒果必须去掉果核。

更多有关批准的加工方法的信息,请联系 APHIS。夏威夷

当地 APHIS 办公室的电话号码请见下页。

在检查后允许从夏威夷进入美国大陆、阿拉斯加以及

关岛的常见物品

n 海滩沙

n 椰子

n 商业罐装食品

n 干种子和装饰物

n 鲜花、花环和叶子(除了任何柑橘或柑橘相关的花、

叶或其他植物部分,以及翡翠葛或莫纳罗)

n 银剑树(寄生藤)

n 爱尔兰或白马铃薯

n 新鲜菠萝

n 处理过的水果,如木瓜、黃金果、释迦、香蕉、咖喱叶、

火龙果、龙眼、荔枝、山竹、红毛丹、杨桃和红薯1

n 植物和插枝2 

n 岩块和石头

n 海贝,非陆地蜗牛壳

n 种子花环和种子饰品

n 木材(包括浮木和木棍)

和木玫瑰(干燥)
允许从夏威夷进入关岛的其他物品

n 甜菜

n 芜菁甘蓝

n 芜菁(不带叶子)

允许从夏威夷进入阿拉斯加的其他物品(但不得重新

运输至美国连续地区)

n 佛手瓜

n 青香蕉

n 小葱

n 利马豆

n 秋葵

n 豌豆

n 南瓜

n 荷兰豆

n 菜豆

n 西瓜

n 四棱豆

n 冬瓜

n 长豆角

n 西葫芦

不允许从夏威夷进入美国大陆和阿拉斯加的常见

物品

n 新鲜水果和蔬菜,但经许可的除外

n 任何种类的浆果,包括新鲜的咖啡莓果和海葡萄

n 仙人掌植物或仙人掌植物一部分

n 棉花植物部分,包括棉铃

n 翡翠葛或莫纳罗的鲜花

n 牛茄子和新鲜露兜树(班兰)果实

n 活昆虫和蜗牛

n 结果实的种子和新鲜的豆荚

n 土壤或土壤中的任何植物

n 甘蔗

n 空心菜(蕹菜)

n 红薯(生)

n 山梅花

此信息随时可能更改。有关最新信息,请联系当地的 APHIS 

办公室:

Honolulu (808) 834-3220 

Kona (808) 326-1252

Kauai (808) 632-2511 

Hilo (808) 933-6930

Maui (808) 877-5261 

有关如何认证植物和插枝的信息,请联系夏威夷农业部

(Hawaii Department of Agriculture):

Honolulu (808) 832-0566

Hilo (808) 974-4141

Kauai (808) 241-7135

Maui (808) 872-3848

Kona (808) 326-1077

欲知详情,请访问 APHIS 网站

www.aphis.usda.gov/travel 

USDA 是公平的机会提供者、雇主及放款人。 2017 年 7 月发布 

PPQ-20-003SC(Simplified Chinese) 于 2020 年 2 月稍作修改

1 这些水果必须在 USDA 批准的机构进行处理,并包装在有适当标记和

盖章的盒子中。

2 如需证明有根植物材料,请联系夏威夷农业部。
# C_2020414EN.01000901.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Aktiebolaget Östgötatrafiken v Patent- och registreringsverket

(Case C-456/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(b) - Signs of which a trade mark may consist - Distinctive character - Application for registration as a trade mark of a sign in respect of a service, consisting of motifs of colour and intended to be affixed to goods used to provide that service - Assessment of the distinctive character of that sign - Criteria)

(2020/C 414/10)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aktiebolaget Östgötatrafiken

Defendant: Patent- och registreringsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the distinctive character of a sign for which registration as a trade mark in respect of a service is sought, which sign is composed of coloured motifs and which is intended to be affixed exclusively and systematically in a specific manner to a large part of the goods used for the provision of that service, must be assessed by taking into account the perception of the relevant public of the affixing of that sign to those goods, without it being necessary to examine whether that sign departs significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---
# C_2019423EN.01004901.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY)

(Case T-749/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark ROAD EFFICIENCY - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 423/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 (Case R 2701/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ROAD EFFICIENCY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000880416
<NAME>NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  677,106
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 24,329
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      39,762
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   277,216
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,018,413
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  160,999
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         51,033
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             212,033
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       475,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                          17,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>               20,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             293,880
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>            1,018,413
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  138,047
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         7,239
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  85,541
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  95,334
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     42,713
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           5,436
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              50,703
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    28,419
<NET-INCOME>                                22,284
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               22,284
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    25,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      46,706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00
        




</TABLE>
#### Benjamin Harrison McCLOUD, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12487.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 2, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1957.

*632Neptune & Stocker, Bartlesville, for plaintiff in error.

■ Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam.H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Judge.

The plaintiff in error, Benjamin Harrison McCloud, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court of Washington County with the crime of driving and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, after having previously been convicted of driving and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

On October 24, 1956 defendant moved the court to permit him to withdraw former plea of not guilty and to enter a plea of guilty. The motion was granted, and sentence day was fixed for November 1, 1956; and then reset for November 15, 1956. At that time additional counsel appeared in the case, and objected to the jurisdiction of the district court to pronounce sentence, After argument, the court fixed the punishment for the offense at confinement in the State Penitentiary at McAlester for one year, and to pay a fine of $1.

Here on appeal one proposition is raised, to-wit: That “The court erred in overruling the motion of the defendant to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter in that there had been no subsequent offense under the 1955 drunk driving act [47 O.S.Supp. § 93]."

The above proposition has recently had the attention of this court in the case of Miller v. State, 316 P.2d 203, and the conclusions there reached are contrary to the contentions here advanced by the defendant. That case may be referred to for reasons for conclusion. • . . . :

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned executive officers of Ameriana Bancorp (the Registrant) hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Jerome J. GassenName:

Jerome J. GassenTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ John J. LetterName:

John J. LetterTitle:

Senior Vice President, Treasurer andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


Date: March 31, 2008
# C_2020271EN.01001801.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Hydro Energo’

(Case C-340/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Tariff heading 7407 - Copper bars, rods and profiles - Hot-rolled copper or copper alloy ingots in a rectangular shape)

(2020/C 271/24)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: SIA ‘Hydro Energo’

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 7407 of the Combined Nomenclature, as set out in Annex I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that copper or copper alloy ingots in a rectangular shape, the thickness of which exceeds one-tenth of the width and which are hot-rolled, but which have irregular pores, holes and cracks in their cross-section are capable of falling under that heading.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---
H. Res. 70 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 3, 2015. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 596) to 

repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and 

health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes. All 

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 

The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 

Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 

adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, 

are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 

thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) 90 minutes of debate equally divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on Education and the Workforce, En-
2 

•HRES 70 EH 

ergy and Commerce, and Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13273-13274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05015]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Georgia Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Georgia 
Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will convene at 10:00 
a.m. and adjourn at approximately 11:30 a.m.

[[Page 13274]]

on Tuesday, April 1, 2014. The meeting will be held at the Latin 
American Association, 2750 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA 30324. The 
purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss its report to 
the Commission on immigration reform and plan future activities.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. 
Comments must be received in the regional office by May 1, 2014. 
Comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth St. SW., Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. 
They may also be faxed to the Committee at (404) 562-7005 or emailed to 
Peter Minarik at pminarik@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional 
information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Southern 
Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled 
date of the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Southern Regional Office at the above 
email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated: March 4, 2014.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2014-05015 Filed 3-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1744

AMRO ELSAYED; LOLA SALAMAH,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

FAMILY FARE LLC; M.M. FOWLER INC.; LEE BARNES, JR., Individually and as 

president of Family Fare LLC. and M.M. Fowler Inc.; DONALD PILCHER, Individually,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, Catherine C. Eagles, District Judges; L. Patrick Auld, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:18-cv-01045-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: June 29, 2023 Decided: September 11, 2023

Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amro Elsayed, Lola Salamah, Appellants Pro Se. William Sutton Cherry, III, Jessica Blair 

Vickers, MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1744 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Amro Elsayed and Lola Salamah appeal several of the district court’s orders entered 

in this action which alleged claims arising out of the termination of a franchise agreement. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s orders. Elsayed v. Family Fare LLC, No. 1:18-cv-01045-CCE-LPA, 

(M.D.N.C. Feb. 18, 2020; Aug. 10, 2020; Aug. 25, 2020; Feb. 9, 2021; June 4, 2021). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1744 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-16-00042-CV

MARTIN JIMENEZ, Appellant

V.

PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 276th District Court

Camp County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-14-2436

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Martin Jimenez timely filed a notice of appeal June 23, 2016. The clerk’s record was filed 

August 1, 2016. The reporter’s record was filed August 5, 2016. Jimenez’ brief was due to be 

filed in this Court on September 6, 2016. When neither a brief nor a motion to extend time for 

filing same was received by September 6, this Court advised Jimenez by letter dated September 22, 

2016, that the brief was late. We further extended the deadline for filing the brief to October 7, 

2016. We warned Jimenez that failure to file the brief by October 7, 2016, would subject this 

appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). 

We have received no responsive communication from Jimenez and have not received his 

appellate brief. Having not received any response to this Court’s letter of September 22, 2016, 

Jimenez’ appeal is ripe for dismissal for want of prosecution. Consequently, pursuant to Rules 

38.8 and 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: October 25, 2016

Date Decided: October 26, 2016
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 23-12

TO: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

Veterinary Services Leadership Team

FROM: Dr. David White

Acting Director

SUBJECT: Issuance of a Conditional License for Canine Parvovirus Monoclonal 

Antibody

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued a conditional 

United States Veterinary Biological Product License to Elanco US Inc., Establishment 

No. 196, Fort Dodge, Iowa, for the manufacture and distribution of Canine Parvovirus 

Monoclonal Antibody.

A veterinary biological product regulated under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act must be 

shown to be pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before a veterinary biological product 

license may be issued. The regulations in title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, part 

102, regarding the licensing of veterinary biological products provide that a conditional 

veterinary biological product license may be issued to meet an emergency condition, 

limited market, local situation, or special circumstance. The special circumstance 

addressed here is to treat disease in dogs caused by canine parvovirus 2b. 

Conditionally licensed products are required to be pure, safe, and have a reasonable 

expectation of efficacy. This conditional license was issued on the basis that the

licensee has demonstrated that the product has a reasonable expectation of efficacy. 

APHIS will evaluate their progress throughout the next year. The conditional license 

will expire two years from the date of the license.

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary

Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue

PO Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

(515) 337-6100
[748 NYS2d 445]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Stacey Simpkins, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 3, 2002

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney,*Bronx *(Joseph N. Ferdenzi*and *Stanley R. Kaplan*of counsel), for appellant. *Legal Aid Society,*New York City *{Andrew C. Fine*and *Jane Levitt*of counsel), for respondent.

*448OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered October 17, 2001 affirmed.

We agree, essentially for reasons stated by the Criminal Court, that the People failed to comply with the speedy trial requirements of CPL 30.30. Each of the postreadiness adjournment periods now in dispute was properly charged to the People, since the delays resulted solely from the People’s repeated and unexplained unreadiness to proceed meaningfully at the combined suppression hearing twice scheduled upon ample notice. “[Bjecause the trial could simply not go forward until [defendant’s omnibus] motion was decided, the People’s dilatory conduct in [connection with the hearing] necessary to that decision was a direct, and virtually insurmountable, impediment to the trial’s very commencement” *(People v McKenna,*76 NY2d 59, 64).

McCooe, J.P., Gangel-Jacob and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.